Jp agreed to be the star of a debate called "1 Christian vs 20 atheists" - and when pressed whether he believes in God, he filibusters. Same thing he did in the debates with Harris and Dawkins.

There's no defending this. The first question is why JP is accepting to debate atheists as a christian when he won't even admit he is one? Either he's mentally unstable or he's being used to demoralized Christians at a time when we finally gained political power. If you think this is an outlier with JP go look at what he said about Kavanaugh, and Pence and his teaming up with the ADL and covid censorship group.

During a debate titled "One Christian vs. Twenty Atheists," Jordan Peterson was pressed to identify himself as a Christian but awkwardly refused. pic.twitter.com/H8QoIQvmb1

— YungPut1n (@YungPutin1) May 25, 2025

*** for all the NPCs. I was an early follower of jp. He was the lone voice against forced pronouns. The interview with Kathy Newman ended the gender pay gap nonsense. 12 rules for life is great.

Farmer_J said:

---

Jp agreed to be the star of a debate called "1 Christian vs 20 atheists" - and when pressed whether he believes in God, he filibusters. Same thing he did in the debates with Harris and Dawkins.

There's no defending this. The first question is why JP is accepting to debate atheists as a christian when he won't even admit he is one? Either he's mentally unstable or he's being used to demoralized Christians at a time when we finally gained political power. If you think this is an outlier with JP go look at what he said about Kavanaugh, and Pence and his teaming up with the ADL and covid censorship group.

During a debate titled "One Christian vs. Twenty Atheists," Jordan Peterson was pressed to identify himself as a Christian but awkwardly refused. pic.twitter.com/H8QoIQvmb1

— YungPut1n (@YungPutin1) May 25, 2025

*** for all the NPCs. I was an early follower of jp. He was the lone voice against pronouns. The interview with Kathy Newman ended the gender pay gap nonsense. 12 rules for life is great.

---

He wasn't against pronouns. He was against government-compelled speech. Big difference.

Did you watch the video?

He did not "Fall"

He made a mistake by thinking intellectualism sells with the Twitter crowd. It doesn't. They prefer sound bites, hot takes and "gotchas."

Peterson will be just fine.

Congrats on the "Win" for the Atheist losers I guess.

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

I'm a fan of JP, but this makes no sense. Why is he in this debate and what did he think the outcome was going to be?

Im Gipper said:

---

He did not "Fall"

He made a mistake by thinking intellectualism sells with the Twitter crowd. It doesn't. They prefer sound bites, hot takes and "gotchas."

Peterson will be just fine.

Congrats on the "Win" for the Atheist losers I guess.

---

You watched that video and think he will be fine?

BCG Disciple said:

---

I'm a fan of JP, but this makes no sense. Why is he in this debate and what did he think the outcome was going to be?

---

That is the question

I think he'll be fine.

Agree with infection - that kid irritates me just by his mannerisms.

No idea how JP would go on 1 vs 20 and not be a Christian. Not a great look, he got owned, but he'll be fine

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Charlie Kirk could handle those 20 atheists without breaking a sweat. Ask yourself why they picked jordan peterson? Or why jordan peterson accepted?

I watched the video over the weekend. Yes, I know he will be fine.

JP has never claimed to be a "conventional" Christian. He always give strange nuanced answers. I don't think he is what I or many would consider a "true" Christian.

JP is against evil. This kid espouses evil and the glee the usual suspects are getting from this is disturbing.

He has also never really been what we consider a Conservative.

I doubt JP is a Christian, but if he is then he needs to come out and say it.

I guess he is going to church regularly which is fine but he seems to want to keep his religion a private matter.

He has done a lot of good in the world fighting against the Leftist crazies.

I listened to the debate and thought he did fine. Atheists are going to think their side won non-atheists are going to think their side won.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Jp agreed to be the star of a debate called "1 Christian vs 20 atheists" - and when pressed whether he believes in God, he filibusters. Same thing he did in the debates with Harris and Dawkins.

There's no defending this. The first question is why JP is accepting to debate atheists as a christian when he won't even admit he is one? Either he's mentally unstable or he's being used to demoralized Christians at a time when we finally gained political power. If you think this is an outlier with JP go look at what he said about Kavanaugh, and Pence and his teaming up with the ADL and covid censorship group.

During a debate titled "One Christian vs. Twenty Atheists," Jordan Peterson was pressed to identify himself as a Christian but awkwardly refused. pic.twitter.com/H8QoIQvmb1

— YungPut1n (@YungPutin1) May 25, 2025

*** for all the NPCs. I was an early follower of jp. He was the lone voice against pronouns. The interview with Kathy Newman ended the gender pay gap nonsense. 12 rules for life is great.

---

He wasn't against pronouns. He was against government-compelled speech. Big difference.

---

trust me, he's against it on a personal level too.

From 2023:

Quote:

---

While some of his stances reflect truth (Romans 1:1920), Peterson's religious beliefs are not fully aligned with Christian faith. His views of the Bible and Christ imply he takes an allegorical, not a literal, interpretation. Separately, some who champion Jordan Peterson as an icon of "right wing" views are disappointed to learn his stance on issues such as wealth redistribution, the legality of abortion, government-provided universal health care, and so forth. Centrist or left-leaning persons, however, may be surprised to find how much his views align with theirs.

---

https://www.gotquestions.blog/Jordan-Peterson.html

Awkward video more than anything. I question the choice to use JBP if we wasn't going to at least play the part for their little debate show.

Farmer_J said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Charlie Kirk could handle those 20 atheists without breaking a sweat. Ask yourself why they picked jordan peterson? Or why jordan peterson accepted?

---

Jordan Peterson isn't going to lead to the downfall of Christianity due to this one incident. It's going to be okay. Move on.

Again, he wasn't against the use of pronouns. He was against being forced to use them by the government.

Please just come out and say what you want to say instead of pimping a video.

JP has always seemed to me to view the Bible as some type of allegorical/symbolic "blueprint" for proper healthy bevhavior. Whereas most of us just view small pieces (i.e. one man and one woman at creation - Garden of Eden, creation of universe in seven literal days etc.) as allegory, he seems to see it all as possbily divinely inspired Aesop's fables.

Im Gipper said:

---

I watched the video over the weekend. Yes, I know he will be fine.

JP has never claimed to be a "conventional" Christian. He always give strange nuanced answers. I don't think he is what I or many would consider a "true" Christian.

JP is against evil. This kid espouses evil and the glee the usual suspects are getting from this is disturbing.

He has also never really been what we consider a Conservative.

---

Not believingin God or Jesus = "non-conventional" Christian?

LOL

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Yep, in any other era, that kid would have gotten smacked around and it would have done him some good.

I cannot stand the condescending atheists. Agnostics are one thing, but the super confident and arrogant atheists (who are some of the most blindly faithful people the world has ever seen) are just far too abrasive.

They believe the entire universe and all of existence just magically came into being from absolute nothingness, without the help of a creator, while we believe that is impossible, that some higher power or force which we cannot understand as humans must have been involved in creating something from absolutely nothing. And they think we are psycho for believing something can't come from nothing without the help of something almighty.

A. One bad or ill-advised debate isn't the 'fall' of JP.

B. His wife and daughter have become believers.

C. Jordan isn't a Christian, but because of his family, he has an intrigue and studies the Bible regularly. He tends to defend the faith, an intertwines Biblical stories into his discussions.

D. The guy likes to have intellectual debates on various subjects. Makes sense he'd have one on this.


That smug turd is pretty incredible. JP has never claimed to be a believer. He's very open about his investigation and continual journey about Faith. They invited him, and that kid ambushes the guest, based on their title, knowing full well what he believes (or should know).

I also think it's funny, an atheist who subscribes to the belief of 'nothingness', attacks JP and calls him 'nothing'. That kid's brought no intellect to the discussion...only a weird nerdy bullying attempt.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Charlie Kirk could handle those 20 atheists without breaking a sweat. Ask yourself why they picked jordan peterson? Or why jordan peterson accepted?

---

Jordan Peterson isn't going to lead to the downfall of Christianity due to this one incident. It's going to be okay. Move on.

Again, he wasn't against the use of pronouns. He was against being forced to use them by the government.

Please just come out and say what you want to say instead of pimping a video.

---

Why do you keep saying this? Have you listened to him at all? I have heard him straight up bash the concept of pronouns. Pretty sure he got in hot water because he refuses to use them and sees them as stupid. Why can't he both (a) be against them, and (b) be against government forcing you to use them?

Farmer_J said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Charlie Kirk could handle those 20 atheists without breaking a sweat. Ask yourself why they picked jordan peterson? Or why jordan peterson accepted?

---

Ultimately these viral "Christian/Muslim/Jew vs atheist" discussions are always hollow and pointless. The apologist inevitably reverts to presuppositional positions when pressed, and the vast majority of professed atheists (particularly young ones) are spent once they've used up all the generic talking points they learned on the internet.

I was just commenting on the unique aspect of this particular video. There is only one adult in that clip and it's Peterson. The kid needs to be smacked.

As I understand him, he's used a transgender person's preferred pronouns in his classroom with no problem. He became upset when Canada and the university had policies/laws in place that would punish him if he didn't use a person's preferred pronoun. This may have changed but that is what I understood him to believe early on.

Now that might have been before the "absurd" pronouns came about. Or again, he's changed his views recently.

This is the best compellation of JP comments on his views of Christianity for anyone truly interested. It's long but it is a very well-done video. JPs views have varied and evolved over time. I think he is closer to being a Christian now than he ever has been, but I don't think he has ever been or is currently there. Nonetheless, I am not the one who will judge a person's soul. That is for Christ to decide. Even if he has never fully committed to the faith, there is no question he has led perhaps millions back to it and in doing so, contributed to the building of God's kingdom on Earth.

I'm not really all that concerned about how Peterson did in this debate. My faith doesn't hinge on the apologetic ability of a cultural Christian. He's really good on most topics, and his biblical insights are interesting, as well. I pray he fully converts someday. As for a better pick for a debate set-up like this, I wouldn't debate Jimmy Akin on the names of my own children. I would guess anyone who actually claims to be a Christian apologist would have been a better pick.

JP needed to hire Terry Tate to handle business

You have the worst takes on JP I've ever seen.

He's being intellectually honest, and he's done more to advances the morals and ethics of the Bible then 99.999999999999999999% of Christians.

Get over yourself. He doesn't owe you anything, much less an answer that placate your ego.

JP isn't Christian in the sense of taking the fundamental tenets on faith alone. He is Christian in the sense that he believes that the fundamental tenets and narratives of the faith are an evolved good, lead to good things, a good and orderly society, and that there seems to be something deep and fundamental at play there that might be more than just archetypal stories, though that has a balue all its own. He hasn't perhaps yet made the leap to comitted faith, but he can see the value in living as a Christian and within a Christianity based culture as opposed to the evidence of most of the alternatives. He argues from that standpoint and perspective, which doesn't require more than to recognize the value of the belief system.

Butcher of Bakersfield said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Yep, in any other era, that kid would have gotten smacked around and it would have done him some good.

I cannot stand the condescending atheists. Agnostics are one thing, but the super confident and arrogant atheists (who are some of the most blindly faithful people the world has ever seen) are just far too abrasive.

They believe the entire universe and all of existence just magically came into being from absolute nothingness, without the help of a creator, while we believe that is impossible, that some higher power or force which we cannot understand as humans must have been involved in creating something from absolutely nothing. And they think we are psycho for believing something can't come from nothing without the help of something almighty.

---

None of those beliefs necessitate one be an effeminate **** with annoying mannerisms though.

Also side point, agnostic and atheist aren't two separate things. They are answers to two separate questions. Most people who call themselves agnostics or atheists are technically "agnostic atheists".

AgGrad99 said:

---

A. One bad or ill-advised debate isn't the 'fall' of JP.

B. His wife and daughter have become believers.

C. Jordan isn't a Christian, but because of his family, he has an intrigue and studies the Bigbe regularly. He tends to defend the faith, an intertwines Biblical stories into his discussions.

D. The guy likes to have intellectual debates on various subjects. Makes sense he'd have one on this...even if that means he realizes he wasn't as prepared or knowledgeable as he thought.

---

Its not one debate. Go watch Harris or Dawkins debates. Read his attack on Candice. Etc

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You have the worst takes on JP I've ever seen.

He's being intellectually honest, and he's done more to advances the morals and ethics of the Bible then 99.999999999999999999% of Christians.

Get over yourself. He doesn't owe you anything, much less an answer that placate your ego.

---

He was in JP's camp until JP went to work for the "yew know whews"

Thread did not go as OP hoped.

I think he believes a lot about God and Jesus from a mental or intellectual standpoint, but is lacking the heart aspect.

"Lord I believe, help my unbelief".

MouthBQ98 said:

---

JP isn't Christian in the sense of taking the fundamental tenets on faith alone. He is Christian in the sense that he believes that the fundamental tenets and narratives of the faith are an evolved good, lead to good things, a good and orderly society, and that there seems to be something deep and fundamental at play there that might be more than just archetypal stories, though that has a balue all its own. He hasn't perhaps yet made the leap to comitted faith, but he can see the value in living as a Christian and within a Christianity based culture as opposed to the evidence of most of the alternatives. He argues from that standpoint and perspective, which doesn't require more than to recognize the value of the belief system.

---

Quote:

---

Read his attack on Candice. Etc

---

You mean calling out the charlatan for what she is?

Peterson does not claim to be a Christian, and that makes you angry. Owens lies about being a Christian, and she is above reproach!

Your motives are clear as a bell now.

Loved early Jordan Peterson. He got on some wacky diet with his daughter a few years back and suffered from addiction and depression. I think he is a shell of the guy he was. 10 years ago he would have owned this debate.